War: politicized

The campaign headlines today revolved a good deal around the publicity battle that John McCain and “Barry” Obama are waging. With Obama's high-publicity trip to the Middle East, McCain has had to fight to retain a place in the news. I don't know that I've expressed it here before, but I am often frustrated by the way in which the Global War on Terror has been reduced to a political byline, useful for headlines and posturing, but not taken seriously. Of course, this happens to a lot of issues during campaigns, but to me, GWOT is so much more important that the usual planks of taxes, energy, healthcare, etc.---it is a battle for American safety and world peace against Islamic terrorism. This is not 4-dollars-a-gallon that were talking about, it's an enemy wants every American dead! And even worse, the politicization of the issue is demeaning to the service and sacrifice of thousands of American servicemen. This is what really angers me. Our guys---my future brothers in arms---are fighting and dying to protect our freedom, and yet they are reduced to pawns in the political war. And pawns, no less, that one side believes should retreat before a “checkmate” is attained against our enemies abroad! I don't want to say that this diminution of the military effort is intentional in all cases, because it is almost impossible to avoid coming across that way when the discussion of the issue is so frequent. One side of the campaign however (you know which one) could care less about victory or the American serviceman, and is interested only in how to use the war as an occasion of political pandering.

With this in mind, I just want to remind everyone to keep in mind the boots on the ground in this battle. Please pray for their safety and for victory! And remember also that for every Marine, Soldier, Sailor, and Airman playing a role in GWOT, there are family and friends back home who know that any day a chaplain could pay them a dreaded visit. Pray for them too. This post is dedication to two of our warriors: Pete Rensema, U.S.A; and Barrett Craven, U.S.M.C.

Security in a Global War

Most Americans are cognizant of the fact that the United States Military is currently engaged in the "war in Iraq," but I think that far fewer realize that Iraq is merely one battle in a global war on terrorism. GWOT, as Army parlance terms it, is also called the Long War, an apt title, considering that this conflict whether "hot" or "cold" has been going on for years, and will continue for the immediately foreseeable future. Winning this war is not a simple matter of sending ships, warplanes, tanks, and troops into a theater of action, and creaming whoever opposes us. If it was, GWOT would almost certainly be of relatively short duration, a short chapter in the history of American military might---witness, for example, the ease and speed with which American forces defeated the regime of Saddam Hussein in the beginning phases of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Instead, as the continuing battles in Afghanistan and Iraq have shown, we are fighting an enemy that cannot be brought "to terms" or simply crushed by overwhelming conventional military might. We face an enemy that rises from, and hides and operates within, civilian populations, that has no regard for human life or any "rules of warfare," and who, simply put, will never surrender and cease operations until either their jihad against the West succeeds or they are eliminated from the face of the planet.

Thankfully, in this case, eliminated does not necessarily refer to killing every potential or even current terrorist around the globe. While it will certainly involve the use of deadly force on a regular basis, terrorism must also be fought on the economic and diplomatic fronts, and, as has been said before me, in "the hearts and minds" of the people whose countries and/or religion produce the vast majority of terrorist combatants. The importance of this was recently brought to my attention by the recent controversy over comments made by U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the methods currently being used by our NATO allies to prosecute the fight against terror in Afghanistan, another important (and currently much ignored) front of GWOT. The main thrust of Gates' complaints was that NATO troops are not properly trained in counterinsurgency tactics and, specifically, often overuse heavy (large caliber) firepower when combating terrorists in urban and suburban settings. This, of course, leads to more civilian casualties, which increases local resentment of and opposition to NATO and U.S. forces, which leads to both less cooperation from local civilians and to higher incidents of terrorist violence. My attention was drawn to this issue through the excellent article "A Flip of the COIN" by Steve Schippert at Threats Watch, which I would strongly urge my readers to read as well. The point of the article, with which I agree, is that although this issue does have to do with training in and methods of combating the terrorist insurgency, the bigger issue is one of the will of the nations involved to prosecute the right kind of war. As Mr. Schippert says, "the extensive employment of - or “overreliance on” - such weapons [heavy weaponry] and tactics reduces the casualty risk of the assaulting force demonstrably. The relative safety afforded assaulting NATO forces in using such ‘standoff’ weapons is also politically enticing for domestic leaderships at home in Europe. And therein lies the true rub: Political Will v. Most Effective Tactics."

The overall point which I would like to draw from this discussion is this: America is involved in a long, non-conventional war in which the only military force that she can truly rely on is her own. This is something that I believe far too few American realize, and therein a great danger lies for the upcoming election. Americans must consider the fact that, short of what I believe would be a miracle, the commander-in-chief that they elect will for the duration of his term lead America and the rest of the free world in the continuing confrontation with Islamic terrorism. This means that first of all the leader that Americans choose must realize that winning GWOT is far more than just winning the battle in Iraq, or even disarming Iran. Catchphrases like "I will pursue Osama bin Laden to the gates of hell" do NOT constitute a strategy for victory. A patriotic and appealing moral and temporary tactical victory---yes. But a permanent milestone in winning GWOT---no. Instead, a successful commander-in-chief must be ready to lead a long and sometimes uncertain struggle, and he must be willing to face unpopularity at home and abroad for doing so. He must also be willing to strengthen our military to wage this war. While our forces are undeniably the best in the world, current force levels are also inadequate for the difficult global task that they face. As the previous discussion shows, it is also a task that, with exception of one or two (and possibly no) allies, they must face alone. A proper view of national defence must also take into account the need increase the size of our military.

As previous posts show, I am a supporter of Fred Thompson for the Republican nomination and the presidency, and I believe that he presents the best choice to fulfill the extremely difficult role that I have just described. He knows and understands the enemies and the war that we face, he is a leader who will confront those enemies without wavering, and he is committed to expanding and strengthening our military to meet these challenges. If there is anyone who reads this article who has not read Senator Thompson's White Paper on "Revitalizing our Armed Forces" I strongly urge them to do so and consider whether this is not the kind of leader that they wish to stand at the helm of the American military in the years and conflicts to come. I pray for America's sake that such will be the choice of voters both now in the primaries and also in November.

Defining a War

Today I read a thought-provoking article in WORLD magazine (07/21/2007 issue) by founder Joel Belz entitled "Careless ambiguity" about how an "ongoing lack of clarity on Iraq is hurting the president and the country." Belz's main point is that due to a lapse in clear explanation from the President, and the negative misrepresentations of the drive-by media and liberal politicians, many Americans are confused about whether the purpose of the war is "mostly about defending America from further terrorism---or is... about helping the people of Iraq restore their country and building a democracy there." Belz correctly points out that there is great importance in the way that this question of purpose is answered. The people of America, by a large majority, support the defense of American soil and freedom. And, if a strong enough case is made that the war in Iraq was an invasion to remove a dangerous national security threat and is a continuing battle to defeat al Qaida and other terrorists who will otherwise harm American interests and American lives around the world, then Americans will rally strongly to the war effort. However, if it is presented as an attempt at democracy-building in a country that obviously faces major impediments to democratic rule and peace, then Americans will have an increasingly hard time supporting the continued shedding of American blood and spending of American money necessary to accomplishing this goal. For the majority, this comes down to basic human self-interest---we are willing to make sacrifices for our own security, but will eventually reach a limit if those sacrifices are depicted as benefiting another country. Others, like myself, face uncertainty because of our understanding of the American military as a weapon to protect American national security and to fulfill agreements with allies, and not, by and large, as an international police force.

I don't believe, however, that these positions need necessarily be at variance. Here's why--- today President Bush came out very strongly in an excellent speech at Charleston Air Force Base and identified al Qaida the number one enemy in Iraq and of both the Iraqi and American people. (Muchas gracias, by the way, to Rush for airing clips of this speech as I wrote this post.) The President clearly refuted the faulty logic of the ridiculous idea that Iraq is the reason for terrorism, pointing out the numerous incidents of anti-American terrorism that occurred long before the decision to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. He stated strongly that our troops are having success in fighting al Qaida and that we must give them time to defeat these and other terrorists, because it would be "dangerous for America and the world" to withdraw prematurely from this battle. He stated very clearly why Iraq is necessary to American security---

"Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.
If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.
We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it."

I whole-heartedly agree, and was gratified to hear this line of reasoning coming from the President. This is the way of looking at the war that encourages me and many other Americans to continue to support it. Al Qaida and terrorism must be defeated wherever in the world it rears its evil head, and Iraq is currently the primary battle-ground against this enemy. The war must continue there in the interests of American security. The other view of this war regarding Iraqi security and sovereignty, although it should not be the primary focus, follows naturally from promoting American interests. If terrorism is defeated, Iraqi peace and freedom will be much easier to achieve. As President Bush said, al Qaida and Islamic terrorism are public enemies numbers one and one for both of our nations, and protecting American interests in this area will have the effect of also promoting Iraqi peace and security.

In conclusion, I think that public support for the war, which is rising according to a New York Times poll released today, depends in part on the goals that are promoted by the White House. President Bush has a responsibility to continue to promote the viewpoint that he laid out today, and if he does, this leadership, along with the continuing successes occurring in Iraq, will rally the American public to the cause. If not, the issues at stake will remain blurred, and this, along with the defeatism of the liberal establishment, will lead to increasing frustration with the war and decreasing support among the public.

More weakness from the US Senate

Hello again everyone. My sincere apologies for the LONG delay between posts--- other priorities have kept me from writing. It's great to be back at the keyboard again.

Once again, debate has erupted in the U.S. Senate over a proposal to force the President to begin the withdrawal of troops from Iraq by the end of this year. What this really means is that so-called "moderates" and liberals in the Senate continue to advocate surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida and Iran, to returning the Iraqi people to a reign of terror and oppression, to portraying America to the world as a gutless nation that can't stomach war or keep its promises, and to rendering the sacrifices in "blood, sweat, and tears" of the American military effectively useless. A lot of liberals accuse President Bush of playing politics with the global war on terror, of lying about intelligence, and of trading "blood for oil." It is liberal anti-war politicians, however, who are really playing politics with this war, with our national security, and even worse, with the lives of our men and women in uniform. The majority of these politicians have never had a principled position on this war, as is evidenced by the fact that many originally voted for the war, and then changed their positions as it became politically expedient.

I guess what really angered me today was a statement from Senator Dick Durbin where he asked rhetorically, "How many sleepless nights have our soldiers and their families had? [wondering whether they would make it home alive]", and then had the cheek to suggest that U.S. Senators could spend at least one similar sleepless night considering the latest withdrawal resolution. What an insult to the American soldier! First of all, I do not deny that American soldiers and their families have spent sleepless nights in connection with this war. I have nothing but respect for these heroes and I honor their sacrifices. For a U.S. Senator, however, to suggest that our armed forces are a lot of poor soldiers quaking in their foxholes, waiting hopefully for the end of the war, is disgraceful. I know I shouldn't be surprised---after all, our troops have been referred to as Nazis, have been labeled as the losers in this war (Sen. Harry Reid), and have been falsely accused of terrorizing and abusing innocent civilians (in the dead of night, no less!) on a regular basis (Sen. John Kerry). Second of all, it is pure ignorance to even compare an all-nighter in the posh confines of the Senate to a sleepless night in a war zone. The Senator's self-proclaimed sacrifice is nothing compared to what our soldiers go through.

Many politicians refer to our troops as heroes because of the dangers and hardships that they are "forced" to face by an incompetent administration. I and the majority of Americans salute the members of America's armed forces as heroes because they volunteer to face these dangers, because they volunteer to defend their country no matter the cost, and because the majority of them are fighting hard and fighting to win because they want victory! The American military does not want to retreat in defeat, and they will win this war if they are not hamstrung by weak-kneed, weak-stomached politicians back home.

Support our military---Support the War on Terror!

Over and out for now.

Courage in a New War

As the war to preserve freedom and defeat terrorism continues to rage around the globe, I want to dedicate this post to honoring and remembering the courage and sacrifice of the American Soldier. This week we commemorated the 63rd anniversary of the D-day landings in Normandy during World War II. Today we are once again a war-weary nation engaged in a life-or-death struggle with an evil enemy, and today the American military still fights on with the same patriotism and even greater bravery than it did more that six decades ago. I say "even greater bravery" for several reasons, but before I enumerate them, let me just say that I fully recognize and honor the heroism of those who fought to preserve the world from tyranny during World War II. My grandfather was a veteran of the Pacific theater, and I have great respect for the sacrifices that he and thousands of others made so that we can live free.

The war that we are fighting today is not the same kind of war, however. Success is not measured in miles of territory gained or in enemy tanks and planes destroyed. The enemy is not a clearly defined force with recognizable uniforms or emblems. The struggle does not have a clear-cut goal at its end. And worst and most shamefully of all, the mission and the men are not fully supported at home. In this war, success is measured as terrorists are eliminated one man or one cell at a time, even as new ones seem to spring up to replace them. In this war, the enemy could be an innocent-looking woman in a market, a "delivery driver" at a checkpoint, or an unseen IED-- all the work of suicidal maniacs who spurn all rules of warfare and who are intent on destroying freedom and the West. In this war, there is no Berlin or Tokyo to capture-- it will instead be a long fight against evil fanatics who will die as "martyrs" rather than surrender. In this war, the mission, and therefore those who perform it, are subjected to pessimistic sentiments, defeatist reporting, and, at the worst, vitriolic attacks from the majority of the drive-by media and a large number of elected leaders and other public figures. I think that this war is one which calls forth even greater endurance and courage from the men and women who serve our country in uniform. May we never forget, and may we always honor this sacrifice.

Please take the time to say a prayer for the success and safety of our soldiers, airmen, and sailors; and please let them know of your support and gratitude.